WASHINGTON, D.C. - More money could pour into federal elections after the Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down limits on the overall campaign contributions individual donors can make in one election season.

"Big money's influence on Capitol Hill is going to increase," said Richard Flanagan, political science professor at the College of Staten Island.

The 5-4 decision means that donors can now give the maximum donations allowed to as many candidates as they like in Senate and House races. Donors will no longer have to worry that they will violate the law by bumping up against a limit on all contributions.

The decision does not change limits on individual contributions to candidates for president or Congress, now $2,600 per election.

Chief Justice John Roberts announced the decision, which split the court's liberal and conservative justices.

The overall limits "intrude without justification on a citizen's ability to exercise 'the most fundamental First Amendment activities,'" Roberts said, quoting from the court's seminal 1976 campaign finance ruling in Buckley v. Valeo.

"It makes life easier for big money," said Flanagan. "The muscle-flexing will be a lot easier."

Congress enacted the limits in the wake of Watergate-era abuses to discourage big contributors from trying to buy votes with their donations and to restore public confidence in the campaign finance system.

But in a series of rulings in recent years, the Roberts court has struck down provisions of federal law aimed at limiting the influence of big donors as unconstitutional curbs on free speech rights.

Most notably, in 2010, the court divided 5-4 in the Citizens United case to free corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they wish on campaign advocacy, as long as it is independent of candidates and their campaigns.

"The political science literature says that money does not buy influence," said Flanagan. "But that belies common sense. Money buys access, and access if half the battle."

In the Supreme Court case, Republican activist Shaun McCutcheon of Hoover, Ala., the national Republican Party and Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky challenged the overall limits on what contributors may give in a two-year federal election cycle. The total is $123,200, including a separate $48,600 cap on contributions to candidates, for 2013 and 2014.

McCutcheon gave the symbolically significant $1,776 to 15 candidates for Congress and wanted to give the same amount to 12 others. But doing so would have put him in violation of the cap.

Flanagan said the decision wouldn't restore public confidence in the system.

"No constitutional right is absolute," he said. "This isn't one that should be either."

U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) called the decision "another step on the road to ruination."

"It's a mixed bag," he said. "I'm not that concerned about individual donations. What they should eliminate is donations from corporations and unions. That would be the best tonic for this country."

Overall, O'Brien said, "the sky is not falling, even though some may see it that way."

He said, "The decision doesn't affect the $2,600 individual limit."

The court did not heed warnings from Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. and advocates of campaign finance limits that donors would be able to funnel large amounts of money to a favored candidate in the absence of the overall limit.